jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
I’m not one for the "one size fits all" approach; I much prefer an individualized method. That is exactly why we have continuous assessment throughout the school year—to track progress and tailor feedback to each specific student's effort. If we didn't, schools would just be running massive standardized exams at the end of every term to generate grades, which would be a far simpler way to get numbers on a page, but it would leave teachers completely relieved of all that heavy lifting and daily engagement.
Look, I get where you're coming from based on your own experience, but we really have to account for the fact that everyone’s path looks different. It isn't always a level playing field. You see these incredibly gifted individuals—people with massive potential—who just never got a single shot because nobody bothered to mentor them or give them an opening. It’s a shame, really; they end up feeling completely overlooked and left behind through no fault of their own.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
Fair enough, the story mentioned illustrates social models. You believe the liberal model is sound, while I see many flaws in it. Additionally, you seem to think it's perfectly fine to replicate such a model within our education system.
Let's set identical rules for everyone, regardless of their varying potentials. Life is unfair; some people are born stronger, others weaker. Let's just accept these natural and social differences and let the children accept them too.
But if we go that route, let's call a spade a spade. Let's openly admit that school is an elitist institution—and in part, a racist one—that judges students, among other things, based on their genetic qualities. And we shouldn't expect kids to love such a school or to see teachers as friendly figures. Because they aren't; they are essentially regime enforcers tasked with carrying out initial social segregation. That is a very dangerous stance to take, because in any game that produces winners and losers, there is always the possibility that the losers will grow resentful and turn that segregated aggression back onto those enforcing the separation. From that perspective, educators should probably be entitled to service credits and special salary supplements.
Anyway, getting back to the main topic: stratification among students definitely happens during their schooling, but I personally feel that elementary school is not the right arena for a struggle for status, especially not in the lower grades. I truly believe we should spare children in their formative years from these cruel social realities.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
I'm inclined to agree; the option for partial failure would certainly alleviate a lot of the current headaches we're facing.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
Your approach strikes me as predictably liberal, though I feel there are countless subtle nuances within the realm of a child's autonomy and freedom of choice that we haven't fully unpacked. In a perfect world, wouldn't it be ideal if a child simply arrived at a decision regarding their own interests and then presented that proposal to the parent? However, one must consider the philosophical implications: since parents are fundamentally responsible for shaping a child's entire value system, one has to wonder how much of that "independent" decision is truly independent at all. It’s a bit of a paradox, isn't it? As for forcing activities against a child's will, I am in total agreement—there is simply no point in that struggle. And yet, it is fascinating to observe how some children perceive even the daily routine of attending school as a form of coercion.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
This is essentially a sophist's question. Ideally, almost metaphysically speaking, a grade holds no value judgment and does not reflect upon one's entire personality; however, in the real world, it certainly does.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
If the qualification of being a 'bad mother' stems from a momentary unavailability, does that not represent a *pars pro toto* error, where the divider is when the temporary becomes the permanent? It’s Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.
And we can freely apply that to the concept of a 'bad student.' How many failing grades are required to earn such a label? Over what period of time? Is it even fair to apply it to students who accumulate Cs, given that a C is technically passing?
In reality, even those who barely scrape by from grade to grade via summer school earn that label. And why, once they've passed? Since when did passing a grade constitute something negative?
A bad mother is one who harms her child; a bad machine is one that fails to function. But a bad student?
Of course, if a child is failing every single assignment and repeating grades multiple times, we are likely looking at a health issue that requires a therapeutic approach, rather than disqualification and reprimands.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
I couldn't agree more.😉
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
I have to admit, I just don’t possess that particular kind of insight. In certain professions, stripping away prejudice isn't just a suggestion—it's an absolute necessity. What would happen if an ER doctor decided who to treat first or how much effort to put into saving a life based on nothing but questionable biases? There's a reason why certain fields are categorized as humanistic; it's because they require a level of objectivity that transcends personal judgment.
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
👍
jadegardener21 said:Now, respecting effort is one thing, and on that point, I am perfectly happy to agree with you.
However, insisting that every single child must exert the exact same amount of labor and struggle through every subject—ignoring the fact that some might find certain topics naturally easier or grasp them much faster—is an entirely different matter altogether... This is purely my own subjective take, and please, do not view this as an ad hominem attack, but I can't help but get the impression that you hold a certain grievance against what one might call "gifted children," and thus you want to force them to struggle just as hard as everyone else simply so the system doesn't appear "unfair." (And perhaps I am being far too subjective myself, having once been such a child who absolutely loathed it... I remember feeling like my right to a standard curriculum was under constant assault when I was forced to push against my own will to do things outside those boundaries, tasks that other children weren't even asked to perform. 😛 Even today, I maintain that it is not fair to MANDATE extra work for an advanced student, whereas I firmly believe it is wonderful and necessary to OFFER those extra opportunities.)
If I may drift slightly off-topic for a moment—though if anyone lacks the concentration for such diversions, feel free to skip these next couple of paragraphs—I really must clarify this, otherwise, I shall be biting my tongue from frustration because I haven't been precise enough... one must attempt to distinguish between the concepts of "fair" and "equitable."
Imagine a race where everyone is lined up at the exact same starting line. The race is for a limited cache of treasure—anyone who reaches the finish line gets a portion, but the amounts will vary WILDLY, because those who arrive first will grab as much as they possibly can. What, then, is the role of the official overseeing the race? There are two fundamental stances:
The "fair" stance would be this: the official's job is merely to ensure the runners aren't tripping each other or blocking the path, but essentially, they don't interfere at all. If one runner is an elite athlete and another is somewhat weaker, the official does nothing about it. The official must be FAIR—meaning identical conditions for everyone, and beyond that, it's up to each individual to perform to their own ability (within the permitted rules—that is what the official monitors).
The "equitable" stance would be this: the official's job is to adjust the starting conditions to "level the playing field" for the runners—perhaps letting the slower ones start a bit earlier or moving the finish line closer to them, attempting to erase the disparities caused by genetics or prior training. That is extremely unfair when viewed realistically, yet somehow feels more "equitable" from a human perspective.
(By the way, this little anecdote comes from an American textbook used to explain the difference between a liberal state and a social welfare state 😛 I have no idea who authored it, though I suspect they were paraphrasing one of the liberal philosophers, but it has certainly stuck in my memory.)
Well, it seems to me that we differ on this specific point (of course, this analogy isn't a perfect equivalent to our current discussion, so please don't latch onto it and force me to defend myself by claiming I don't agree with every broader implication presented, let us simply treat it as a rough guide)—I view the school system as a "liberal" framework, whereas you seem to see it as a "socialist" one. My view is that the role of the school is to be fair, providing everyone with the same starting positions and unhindered progress, and after that, it is up to the individual to build upon their own race as best they can. The goal for everyone enrolled in the same group (be it a grade, a course, or whatever you call it) should be identical, because that is how you ensure fairness and comparability—in other words, the final test, the basis upon which results are measured, must be the same for everyone, since they are all in the same class; if someone finds that doesn't suit them, they can move to another class with a different objective, etc. (much like in highly academic schools, where students are clearly in a different type of class with different goals, yet for the race to remain fair, it must still follow a consistent pattern). You believe the role of the school is to intervene in the race, shift the runners around, or set different goals for them, trying to force "equity" through sheer willpower (which I disagree with within the context of the same system or the same classroom—though I certainly agree with the existence of different schools with varying levels of knowledge and objectives, provided that the children in those specific departments are again in a fair race against one another).And that is a perfectly valid stance to take. All I am asking for is that you acknowledge my own position as being just as legitimate, even if we clearly find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue...
My view is that the primary mission of the American school system should be to ensure every single child has the necessary environment to succeed and master the curriculum, providing them with support and offering supplemental instruction—and please, note my choice of the word "offer," because we certainly shouldn't be forcing children into extra work if they have no desire for it; their actual obligation lies strictly within the standard coursework and the prescribed material... whereas attempting to correct flawed genetics or social structures is a far more secondary objective, and one that absolutely cannot be masqueraded as some sort of "educational goal" (a concept which, if we disagree on its priority, essentially amounts to denying the very purpose of schooling itself).
In the past, students who fell outside the expected average were often overlooked, but we are seeing a shift today. We see extracurricular enrichment for gifted students and tailored approaches for those who learn at a different pace. There is a palpable trend toward accepting individual differences. I believe that with a bit more willpower and effort, we could achieve results far more significant than what we see currently.
I agree, provided the system remains fair. That is, as long as we recognize that a student's sole obligation is to the mandatory curriculum, not to any elective enrichment programs (much like how a young 😛 wouldn't be forced into mathematics if it wasn't their calling), and as long as those who fail to meet the required minimum standards are allowed to fail without holding back the rest of the class... actually, I suspect a major flaw in the American education system is the lack of an option to fail a specific subject rather than having to repeat the entire grade, which would resolve quite a few headaches...
It raises an interesting question: does a child have the right to behave or make choices that ultimately harm them? If they have the right to neglect their potential, do they also have the right to neglect their health or adopt habits that damage them? At the end of the day, it is their life and their body. How far can we push the concept of the right to choose?
While this is a complete departure from our topic, it is a fascinating question to ponder...
I don't personally feel that failing to utilize a mathematical talent "harms" someone—it simply means it doesn't "contribute" to them, and there is a profound difference between those two states... On the other hand, eating three bars of chocolate every day or sleeping only two hours a night would obviously do more than just fail to contribute; it would actively "harm" them. That is how I categorize it...
Regarding whether a child has the right to choose, I suppose you should ask all those unfortunate children across the country whom parents force into piano lessons, ballet classes, or professional sports just because the kid happens to have a natural gift for it. I don't believe that is a sound approach, and I would NEVER go against my own child's wishes in such a matter. As I mentioned before, I believe the duty exists only regarding the core curriculum, not when it comes to elective content or advanced studies...
I notice a certain tension here, and a tendency to reduce a theoretical question to a personal level or even resort to ad hominem arguments. Who is to say whether I have children, and does that even matter? I know how things stand in our education system, and I know many people who harbor a certain dissatisfaction with it, which is more or less rationally grounded.
There is no tension; I am actually a very easygoing person, though perhaps I come across as much more "intense" in writing than I truly am in person...
😉 Perhaps my phrasing was a bit clumsy, and if it comes across like I’m coming after you personally, please believe me when I say that isn't my intention... I merely wanted to draw a clear line between how an individual chooses to approach a grade and the fact that the grade itself possesses no inherent value. One's personal methodology doesn't change the fundamental reality that the score, in and of itself, remains entirely devoid of any objective worth...
Whether you have kids of your own or not is really a secondary matter if you actually understand the reality of the situation, but I feel compelled to mention that I personally shed a significant number of my own prejudices once I had a child enrolled in the local school system... prior to that, I thought I "understood" the landscape through observing other people's children, only to discover that I was completely in the dark about many fundamental aspects of how things truly work. Of course, I am not an education professional by trade, so perhaps the perspective differs if you work directly with students every day—you might grasp the nuances of the system even without having a child of your own navigating it... 🙂).
No, the reality remains that grades possess an inherent value-based dimension... if they didn't, educators wouldn't bother notifying parents when their child is struggling or failing, nor would they offer praise when a student truly excels. To label a student as "good" carries a profound axiological weight, just as calling them "bad" carries its own heavy, pejorative significance...
Someone’s personal way of looking at things doesn't change the fundamental reality that a grade, in and of itself, lacks any inherent dimension of value...
Even if we were to go so far as to label someone a "bad student," that particular descriptor only really applies to their academic performance within that specific phrase... It’s quite common for teachers to follow up such a remark by pointing out how wonderful the child is as a friend, or how much they are loved by their classmates, or perhaps highlighting some other admirable quality—but, well, the actual schoolwork just isn't clicking. Personally, I am still not entirely convinced that we should be so blunt as to slap the label of "bad student" on a child, especially not right to their face! However, if one is being exceptionally careful and views this "bad" designation strictly through the lens of academic struggle rather than judging the entire child based on a single metric, then I suppose there is a kernel of truth to be found in it...
One simply cannot maintain the pretense that everything is perfectly fine when someone directs a comment like, "you are a bad mother," toward you... It is impossible to argue that such an accusation is merely a neutral observation, perhaps implying that one is occasionally, I don't know, a bit high-strung, or indifferent, or anything of the sort... Such things are far from neutral...
That is an incredibly potent accusation, one that some might even go so far as to call outright offensive... And if we are going to sit here and argue that labeling someone a "bad mother" is a stinging insult, then I simply cannot fathom why we don't apply that same level of scrutiny when we tell someone they are a "poor student"... It seems there is a strange, inconsistent double standard at play in our social judgments, isn't there...
If I happen to feel a bit on edge or perhaps somewhat indifferent from time to time... well, that single observation is fundamentally flawed because it commits the logical fallacy of taking a mere fragment of my temperament and trying to pass it off as the whole truth... If someone were to assume... It just keeps happening... over and over again, without fail... A bad student... I am not talking about those kids who just happen to have a rough week or fall into a temporary slump, no... I am referring to that singular, unwavering constant throughout their entire academic career, that persistent state of being... Spot on. The statement implies that we will remain vigilant for such an extensive period that we eventually find ourselves forced to "limit" our caution—which is really just a polite way of saying we’ve become a bad student of our own history... Considering the circumstances... The metrics regarding how effectively students are actually mastering the prescribed academic curriculum... When one takes everything into account and weighs it against... "...other kids the same age, blah blah blah." Honestly, you’re free to take offense if someone directs that at you, but let's be real—it's an accurate observation, regardless of how much it stings... I would certainly never utter such a thing directly to a child, given my respect for child psychology, but I can maintain enough emotional distance to recognize that certain circumstances exist where that statement is objectively true... just as there are bad mothers, or reckless drivers on the interstate, or poorly manufactured cars... We simply have to be careful to distinguish our "basis" for judgment, whether it's poor... Compared to what, exactly...? i But really, I have to wonder... what exactly are the criteria being used here? It feels like we’re just throwing darts in the dark without any real framework or established standards to lean on... and frankly, it's a bit exhausting to even contemplate the lack of consistency... Let us be clear about this. Every single one of these educators operates from some sort of foundational platform, some established base of knowledge or authority upon which they build their arguments... The issue only truly arises when YOU—and I am not being aggressive here, mind you, I am simply making an emphatic point that is entirely impersonal—when YOU decide to... 😉So, you’re telling me that you don't actually agree with the database they're using to back up that particular statement... which is honestly quite a bold stance to take given how much people tend to cling to whatever data is thrown their way, but I suppose if one is going to be pedantic about the facts, one might as well go all the way...
If you truly believe that "bad students" simply don't exist... if you’re actually suggesting that we can't compare children's results because every single child is an absolute individual moving at their own unique pace, and therefore nothing is comparable at all, which means objective grading scales shouldn't even exist... then I have to wonder where exactly we are heading with this logic... Alright, that is certainly your perspective, though I find myself standing on the entirely opposite side of the fence... perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 🙂
I would argue that many educators employ a specific type of rhetoric that essentially ties a child's intrinsic worth directly to their academic performance.
This is a profound issue, and honestly, it isn't even confined to the American school system.
In general, attempting to view an individual solely through the lens of one single characteristic is a complete fool's errand, and frankly, it is quite tragic that human nature is wired this way... There will always be people who attempt to measure a person's entire value based on their net worth, their Ivy League degrees, their physical attractiveness, their influential social circles, or any other isolated quality you can think of. Some of these individuals happen to work with children, and one could easily expect them to bleed that exact same flawed mindset into their profession. What can you do, I suppose, it's just how humans are built... I am not suggesting it is right, per se, but I do understand the psychological mechanism driving it. 🤷
(Though, if we were to strip away all the nuances, it might end up being the case that in principle we actually agree on most things... 😛 My point is specifically about this current system, without denying the possibility of something better or acknowledging that, ideally, things ought to be vastly different.)
If I try to steer back toward the original topic, personally, I don't see a massive issue with grading elementary students; "psychologically" speaking, perhaps it feels a bit awkward—much like any form of evaluation—since it is inherently imprecise and acts more as a "placement on a scale" rather than assessing someone within their own unique parameters, which is what the protagonist advocates for (but within the system, I truly believe there is no other way for it to function).
I mean, do people insist there are no winners when kids play any game, even a harmless one, just because they don't want the losing team to feel bad? Are we really trying to scrub that "competitive" edge out of every single aspect of life just to shield children from reality? Grades, ultimately, are the same thing; from my own experience and that of my children, I don't see any more drama surrounding grades than there is around anything else kids obsess over... the only difference is that a larger number of adults will take them seriously and, unfortunately, judge a child through that narrow lens, which again, has nothing to do with the child themselves. I don't believe their existence is "destructive" to a child's psyche, even in the lower grades (though life could certainly be more comfortable without grades there), provided that the adults around them remain sane and don't hyperventilate over them. In my view, the real problem lies in the hysteria of the adults, much more so than in the existence of grades or the comparison of children's achievements.
Yes, precisely. However, I will reiterate my point: younger children could quite easily be spared some of the more unsightly aspects of competition, especially since they are bound to encounter them eventually later in life.